By Dr. Earl R. Smith II
Chief@ComeOnSense.com
www.ComeOnSense.com
There would seem little point to inquire whether god should guide the governance of church matters and, although recent history has provided many examples of ‘un-god-like’ behaviors among the clergy, I am willing to accept the proposition that the ideal at the core of any theology should inform the governance of those earthly institutions which serve it. Those who claim to speak for any particular deity should be held to the dictums attributed to that deity and the flock which ascribes to the theology should be prepared to be subject to it as well. It seems also plain that, in the United States, secular government should have no say in such matters. The constitution provides such a protection and specifically proscribes government from interfering of promoting one religion over any of the others.
A far more interesting question – particularly in the light of the last decade – comes when we ask whether religion – any religion – should play a significant role in any secular government. Here the constitution seems to be rather specific as well. The United States government is prohibited from declaring one religion as the state religion. Article 6 declares that “[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” During the debates, James Madison suggested that “Religion itself may become a motive to persecution and oppression.” In the debates leading up to the passing of the Bill of Rights, Madison argued that the “civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”
This position was widely held throughout the colonies. From the New Hampshire debates came the following: “Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.” From the Virginia debates: “That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.” And from the debates in New York: “That the people have an equal, natural, and unalienable right freely and peaceably to exercise their religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.” The quintessential formulation of this principal shows up in the first amendment to the constitution. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
It seems abundantly clear that the founders were determined to prohibit the federal government from interfering with an individual’s right to practice whatever religion they preferred. What about the other side of the question? Should any given religion be allowed to interfere with the management of the federal government?
Here there seems to be some guidance from, of all places, the scriptures. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”[1] Jesus seems to have been saying that secular issues should be left to secular government – perhaps one of the earliest formulations of the idea of separation of church and state. Following this idea, it seems to me that we might start with an inquiry into the source and nature of sovereignty within both theology and the form of government which the founders bequeathed to us – for it is in this area that the difficulty of mixing religion into government becomes the clearest. The distinction in the quote above is critical to the understanding of the issue – in truth; religion and government constitute the proverbial oil and water – held together only by overwhelming force – a power imbalance which allows one (usually religion) to impose its values and vision on the other (usually government). The core question is “where does ultimate truth – the well-spring of authority – the very fountain of sovereignty spring from”?
In any religion the answer to this question is clear – authority comes from the worshiped deity and through the words attributed to that deity as interpreted by the theological authorities who are recognized by its followers. In nation states which are theocracies, the leadership of the state religion and the secular government is often merged. In others, the secular government is subservient to the theocracy. But in both cases the informing idea is that the deity has decided and the followers – including those in the government – are required to comply. The foundational documents of the religion are the basis of the government’s power. And they are not open to revisions or revocation by the faithful.
The founders of our Republic had a completely different vision of sovereignty. They believed that such power arose from the people and that government was subject to the people. All powers which the government had were as a result of a grant from the people and the people retained the right to withdraw any or all of those powers at any time. The interpreters of what was appropriate – what powers would be exercised, what policies followed, what actions taken – were the citizens both directly and through their elected representatives – without an overbearing theocracy to declare that they were either wrong or right.
When it came to the question of the role of government in promoting religion in society, a shared vision was clearly stated by many of the founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”[2] In his autobiography Jefferson writes “Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”[3] In a letter to Horatio G. Spafford Jefferson wrote “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”[4]
When we turn to James Madison we find quotes which seem to be even more on point – more focused on the central question being asked here – should religion (any religion) play a principal role in guiding the actions and formulating the policies of the federal government of the United States. Madison was fairly clear on this question. “Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov’ & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov’ of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”[5]
There cannot be any doubt that James Madison saw real danger in the establishment of a ‘coalition’ between religion and secular government. He drove home the point in a letter to Rev Jasper Adams “[I]t may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov’t from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others.”[6] The word ‘unsurpastion’ is the telling one here – its modern counterpart is usurpation. The evils of a coalition between religion and government were, in Madison’s mind, a direct threat to the government being formed and the society which was to live along side of it. This line of reasoning brought Madison to declare “It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspiciously corroboates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho’ bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE.”[7] The meaning here is very clear – theology should govern the church and the Constitution should guide the federal government and mixing them is at the peril of the citizens, liberty and the entire American experiment.
Madison’s position was based on the following insight: “In a large society, the people are broken into so many interests and parties, that a common sentiment is less likely to be felt, and the requisite concert less likely to be formed, by a majority of the whole. The same security seems requisite for the civil as for the religious rights of individuals. If the same sect form a majority, and have the power, other sects will be sure to be depressed. Divide et impera, the reprobated axiom of tyranny is, under certain qualifications, the only policy by which a republic can be administered on just principles.”[8]
In a letter to Thomas Jefferson – who was in Paris during the Constitutional Convention, Madison addresses the issue this way “The inefficacy of this restraint on individuals is well known. The conduct of every popular assembly, acting on oath, the strongest of religious ties, shews that individuals join without remorse in acts against which their consciences would revolt, if proposed to them, separately, in their closets. When, indeed, Religion is kindled into enthusiasm, its force, like that of other passions, is increased by the sympathy of a multitude. But enthusiasm is only a temporary state of Religion, and whilst it lasts will hardly be seen with pleasure at the helm. Even in its coolest state, it has been much oftener a motive to oppression than a restraint from it.”[9]
In more recent time John F Kennedy – America’s first Catholic president – wrote “I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.”[10]
Underlying all of these visions is an understanding of the fundamental differences in the roles and contributions of religion and government to human society. Religion is essentially a tribal arrangement which separates out the followers as the ‘chosen few’ from the rest of humanity. Its structure begins at the top with the deity and extends downward through the agencies of theocrats, clergy and accolades. The non-believers are considered ‘not part of the body’.[11] Followers have one and only one significant role in the religion – to accept the received orthodoxy and to comply with its strictures.
Democracy completely reverses this formulation. The people get to decide what the rules are, who wields the power, which powers they will yield and which are to be withheld from government. Instead of an extended, ancient and relatively changeless foundational document, there are relatively few foundational documents all of which are changeable at the people’s will. American-style government is inherently pluralistic – at its best, it recognizes the legitimacy of every perspective, opinion, ethnicity, religion and preference among its citizens – all of which are proscribed only by the powers which the people have granted to their government. In the mind of the Founders, the people had the right to decide how their government would be organized and the powers it would wield – and they could unmake any of those decisions without interference from that government.
The nature of the Constitution and the American government is very specific in this area. The brief oath which the American President takes encapsulates the idea at its very core.[12] It doesn’t bind the President to preserve, protect and defend the Bible, the Book of Mormon or the Koran – but the Constitution of the United States. The President may be a believer in one of the many religions and feel a need to protect its foundational documents – but NOT AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. The oath binds the President to consider the Constitution the highest law of the land – with none above it. A President who takes that oath and does not truly accept that condition is a traitor to the very idea of a government of, by and for the people – all the people. If a politician cannot swear that their religion will not trump the Constitution in their role as President, then they have no right to be President because their taken oath and the commitment it implies to the people and Constitution are lies. For the President of the United States, there can be no ‘higher father’ when it comes to the fulfilling of these responsibilities – the Constitution is the ultimate word and the highest authority.
There is one more version of this core question which may have occurred to you. What if a majority of the people decide that theology should guide the hand of government and that their foundational documents should trump the Constitution? What if the majority of the citizens decide that the government of the United States should be a theocracy? The answer to this version is quite simple – they can’t and any effort to do so is, on it very face and short of overturning the Constitution of the Unites States, unconstitutional. The only way that the government of the United States can be turned into a theocracy is by a shredding of its foundational document – the Constitution – and by a complete disregard for the clear intents of the founders.
We live in a time – perhaps it is because so many Americans are nearing the end of their lives and facing their own mortality – when strong forces are mustering what feels like a final charge to turn the federal government of the United States into a theocracy. Perhaps this wave has already broken and those forces are reseeding – or perhaps they are simply re-gathering for another assault on the Constitution. But the last decade has been a perilous time for that document and the Bill of Rights.
The experiment of the last eight years – the election of a ‘pastor in chief’ as President of the United States – should be enough to inform all but those dedicated to the establishment of a theocracy in America. The country is poorer, massively in debt, isolated from the rest of the world to an extent not seen since before the second world war, sending its young to die in a senseless war, seeing its treasury looted by the administration and its political allies and suffering under the jack boot of an imperial presidency that has systematically assaulted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Americans should recognize the cost of allowing religion to intrude into the halls of government – and re-learn the wisdom of the founders when they warned against such an intrusion.
When asked at the end of the Constitutional Convention what form of government was being birthed, Benjamin Franklin responded “A Republic, if you can keep it.” A republic cannot be a theocracy and, should any deity be deemed by its elected leaders as being the defining and ultimately deciding force in its operation, it will fall into the historical trash bin of governments which have formed such an unholy alliance. The saddest images of the 2008 campaign have been of candidates overtly and ardently professing their religious beliefs – and, in doing so, taking the government farther down the road towards a theocracy. How refreshing it would be to have a least one candidate embrace the Constitution as the superior document – to have at least one candidate make it clear that the oath of office means exactly what it says and that they will ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution rather than advance the control of their particular theology over the government of the United States. How amazing it would be to have at least one candidate show the wisdom and courage of the founders and to prove for our time that such courage and wisdom had not died out two centuries ago.
Dr. Smith is a political and social theorist who lives in Washington, DC
© Dr. Earl R. Smith II
[1] This phrase has become a widely quoted summary of the relationship between Christianity and secular authority. The original message, coming in response to a question of whether it was lawful for Jews to pay taxes to Caesar, gives rise to multiple possible interpretations about whether it is desirable for the Christian to submit to earthly authority. Interpretations include the belief that it is good and appropriate to submit to the State when asked, that spiritual demands supersede earthly demands but do not abolish them, or that the demands of the state are non-negotiable. Source: Wikipedia
[2] Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
[3] Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
[4] Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814. It is important to note here that Jefferson saw religion as retrogressive and an ally of the forces in society which would overturn the Republic and place citizens back into the role of subjects – an ally of the despot.
[5] James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt. Clearly Madison was making a distinction between the ‘old’ idea that an alliance between government and religion was the very stuff that held a society together and the ‘new’ idea that such an alliance was a direct threat to the liberty of the general population. At the time this was a truly revolutionary formulation.
[6] James Madison, in a letter to Rev Jasper Adams spring 1832, from James Madison on Religious Liberty, edited by Robert S. Alley, pp. 237-238
[7] James Madison, as quoted in Robert L. Maddox: Separation of Church and State; Guarantor of Religious Freedom. Notice Madison’s formulation – TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE. This is the converse of the formulation separation of the state from the church. Madison was warning that a ‘pastor in chief’ would be a ‘disaster in chief’. Recent history seems to have borne him out.
[8] Letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 24, 1787 (Madison 1865, I, pages 343 to 357).
[9] letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 24, 1787 (Madison 1865, I, pages 343 to 357).
[10] John F. Kennedy, September 12, 1960, address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association
[11] In earlier days, non-believers were generally non-Christians – but in more recent times a far more restrictive definition has evolved – particularly among American Protestants. Other followers of the god of Zoroaster are branded heathens and their religions as cults. I have encountered Baptists who consider every religion – including Catholicism and most forms of Protestantism in this light. The tribe of followers has become very small indeed.
[12] “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Entries (RSS)
June 18th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I agree with you on all fronts excepting on
What if the majority of the citizens decide that the government of the United States should be a theocracy? The answer to this version is quite simple – they can’t
This was the argument by those that supported the fugitive slave repatriations, made explicit in the first constitution of 1787, and (“supported” at least in the eyes of the Slave Holders) by the bill of rights (10th amendment “State Rights”).
It took a constitutional amendment to change that view (the 13th). And take explicit references to Slavery OUT of the constitution. But it did happen.
Constitutions CAN be amended by the vote of the people. For Good and Bad as you may judge it to be.
And amendments CAN be annulled. Witness the annulment of the 18th amendment (hooch) by the 21st (hooch allowed).
This is the greater law of nature the intentions of which are ostensibly to allow “change for the better by debate and will of the people”. But with that responsibility also comes opportunity for great mischief.
If the 18th amendment can be annulled, why not the 1st, or any other ? Or all of them ?
If the majority of the people WANT a theocracy, they will get their Theocracy!
And, as far am I and You are concerned, lose the Brave New World based on the “Age of Reason” and “Rights of Man” as Thomas Paine Intended/Advocated, and Hamilton, Madison, Jay implemented.
SO.. let us not be complacent on that front. Mundane things like Demographics are KEY here.
And Vigilance is and has always been the Guardian of liberties. Hamilton’s Federalist #1.
Lets hope we do our parts to “fireproof” to the best of our abilities that which is truly important to us. Else the laws of nature say: We deserve to lose it.
Editor’s Comment: Thanks for the comment. The Federalist Papers focused on the dangers of the ‘tyranny of the majority’. It was an issue that particularly bothered Madison. The solution that the framers came up with – and one that has worked quite well over the years – makes it fairly difficult to amend the Constitution. A proposed amendment first has to pass both houses of Congress. It then moves to the States for ratification. The ratification process requires two-thirds of the State to approve any amendment before it becomes the law of the land. Madison realized that such a process would result in an extended debate and would make it very difficult for a passionate majority to work their will on the Constitution or the citizenry. The Connecticut compromise and the subsequent 13th Amendment is a very good example of how the process can work. The 18th and 21st Amendments show how a misstep can be rectified. Unlike other constitutions, ours has been amended very few times. The British constitution and that of California prove the dangers of making the process too easy. In politics, we make a distinction between what is possible and what is probable – Madison, Jay and Hamilton made that same distinction. Is it possible to turn the Unites States into a theocracy – sure. Is it probable – not at all. In fact, the possibility has diminished as the religious diversity of the country has increased.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
I will add that making the country a theocracy does not mean undoing the entire Constitution.
It is a simple process, really.
It means undoing the first amendment, and adding another. This has been done before.
This new amendment would create a “State Religion” and makes all laws subservient to it.
And the “People” (House of Reps/Senate) would be the constitutional instrument for making all that happen/
All the rest of the mischief will follow. The Supreme court would be bound to “interpret law” by that new amendment, etc etc etc
The reason I state all this is not because I wish for this to happen. But because I think …. it is important to KNOW the dangers. And be extremely paranoid.
Editor’s Comment: Thanks for the additional comment. There have been several attempts to pass amendments to the Constitution – one of the most recent being the Equal Rights Amendment. A couple that come to mind are the efforts to propose a ban on flag burning and to declare that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Both have failed because the interest groups pushing them failed to get the necessary support in Congress. The proposed amendments never even made it to the States for ratification. Given what I know about the workings of Congress, it is significantly less likely that any attempt to modify Article 6 would succeed where these efforts have failed. I do agree that vigilance is necessary. The encroachment by the Executive branch poses a much more immediate challenge.